A public broadcaster's Gaza whitewash

A review commissioned by Radio New Zealand finds the broadcaster upholding international best practice with its coverage of a "complex and contested" issue.

A rocket destroys residential high rise homes in Gaza at the beginning of Israel’s latest military incursion. (Photo: Palestinian News Agency via Flickr)

If you’d like to appreciate Western media’s inability to confront its growing crisis of trust and credibility, a report commissioned by New Zealand’s national broadcaster into its Gaza coverage gives some insights.

Radio New Zealand (RNZ) this month released findings of an ‘independent’ review of its digital reporting and broadcast output over a 9-month period following the October 7 Hamas attack.

With other state-funded broadcasters, including the BBC, facing increasing reputational collapse due to skewed, narrative-led reporting that declined to document the type of evidence of genocide now before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), you’d be forgiven for thinking RNZ was being prudent in wanting to address its own similar failures.

But, instead of offering a bitter tonic to treat an institutional blindness to fundamental deficiencies in fulfilling its public interest charter to provide “comprehensive, independent, accurate, impartial, and balanced” international news and current affairs, the review raised a toast to RNZ with a bland beverage, palatable to its managers.

“I reviewed all on-air complaints and RNZ’s replies,” Colin Feslier, the former government spin doctor commissioned to write the report, said.

“I was unable to find anything that indicated a systemic problem in meeting the standards or any general variation from accepted news gathering and reporting.”

Western media framing of Hamas’ October 7 Al Aqsa Flood and Israel’s response to it played and continues to play a vital role in facilitating the ethnic cleansing of Gaza, involving the starvation and bombing of a civilian population. The Lancet journal estimated 186,000 Palestinians may have died as a result, up until June last year. With the resumption of Israel’s campaign last week, the death toll will continue to rise.

Feslier, also a former RNZ editorial policy manager, concluded the broadcaster was resolutely maintaining editorial standards and international best practice, while dealing with complaints appropriately, amid a cacophony of partisan noise over a sensitive, complex and contested topic.

The report was based on analysis of complaints to RNZ and regulatory bodies, the Press Council and the Broadcasting Authority, well as a cursory review of RNZ’s reportage itself. RNZ relies heavily on international news wire agencies and partners, including Reuters, Agence France-Presse (AFP), Associated Press (AP), the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and the Cable News Network (CNN).

It concluded complaints made about the Israel-Palestine conflict were nothing new, that some complaints were based on antisemitism, some lodged by a have-a-go “partial readership” and groups pushing agendas, and that all complaints were “emotional” and correctly dismissed. The one exception involved a news bulletin in January 2024 misstating the ICJ had found Israel not guilty of genocide, a botch-up that occurred during a holiday period when RNZ precariously runs a skeletal staff roster.

Feslier subtly undermined complainants by referencing their emotionality early in his report. Whereas this reference implied cognitive bias and an inability to remain objective, RNZ avoided this pitfall, Feslier maintained, by successfully implementing editorial policy ‘standards’ to ensure its content was accurate, fair and balanced.

In actual fact, manipulating cognitive bias and base emotions has been a function of Western media, including RNZ, during the past 18 months.

Managing public perception

In his report summary, Feslier said that, although RNZ was upholding standards, it needed to be seen to do so, to keep public perception onside and to protect against reputational harm.

Feslier is no stranger to managing public perceptions. In March 2009, when employed by the New Zealand’s Ministry of Internal Affairs, he was accused of misleading several media outlets over former Minister Winston Peters use of a ministerial car months after his election defeat.

According to an APNZ report, a leaked document revealed he had told Ministerial Services he had managed to "terminate the interest" of the outlets by telling journalists there were no problems, while Peters was being pursued for nearly $20,000 over vehicle use.

It is easy to think Feslier was commissioned due to his history of establishment loyalty and public relations background, making the review a cynical exercise in box ticking, rather an independent report in any real sense.

The review came after an Independent Review Panel probe in July 2023 into RNZ editorial processes in the aftermath of RNZ’s so-called ‘Russian edits scandal’. I was at the centre of it over my sub-editing of Reuters and BBC stories while working on the RNZ digital desk. It recommended RNZ annually scrutinise aspects of its editorial output.

The manner and timing of last week’s review publication was also telling. Released late on a Friday afternoon as the week-day news cycle came to a close, its content was curated by another safe pair of hands, Media Watch’s Colin Peacock, while its findings were embedded in an RNZ response statement, itself embedded in Peacock’s column.

Peacock was at pains to point to an internal RNZ audit that found I’d breached standards by editing several Reuters stories relating to Palestine and Israel. For the record, I removed details in those stories that took as fact uncorroborated claims by the IDF, for reasons that must now be obvious, even to Peacock. I’d also replaced references to ‘militants’ with ‘Palestinian armed resistance groups’.

Peacock’s sloppy reporting falsely claimed I was “found to have inappropriately edited more than 50 online international news stories” and that “most were altered with a pro-Russian slant”.

The number flagged in RNZ’s internal audit was in fact 49 stories, less than half of which related to the West’s proxy war in Ukraine. He also failed to point out the Independent Review Panel itself challenged the RNZ audit findings by concluding many of the 49 stories flagged should not have raised concerns.

To be clear, I continue to stand by all of the wire copy sub-editing, using the Journalists’ Code of Ethics, which states “respect for truth and the public’s right to information are overriding principles for all journalists”.

Peacock’s willingness to act as a conduit for RNZ messaging and its smears is consistent with his past editorial positioning. A former BBC staffer once employed across its world news departments, Peacock has not once used his columns to challenge media coverage of Gaza and Israel’s actions over the past 18 months.

Media theory rationalises Western bias

Feslier, in his review, declines in similar fashion, while employing media theory to back up his position.

Most strikingly is his explanation of Western media’s imbalanced reporting of Israel perspectives above those of Palestinian perspectives, with reference to the concept of ‘proximity’.

He writes: “Israel, as a result of tourism, trade, ‘western’ alignment and language (with English a common first and second language there) have [sic] a greater ‘news proximity’ to New Zealand than do Palestinians and Palestine. Stories may be chosen for these reasons and the inevitable result is a stronger perception of news relevance of Israeli stories. Coverage of stories with a Palestinian angle will tend to be less often reported.”

Feslier doesn’t condemn this approach in determining what news is relevant and what voices salient. Instead, he treats it in a value-neutral way, suggesting it simply reflects the utilitarian nature of news selection. He ambiguously cautions this should simply be “taken into consideration” when thinking about balance in Palestine-Israel news coverage.

In framing the issue this way, he effectively offers ideological cover for Western cultural, structural and institutional bias in RNZ news output.

Feslier’s troublesome ontological positioning may be also meant to shield RNZ from accusations of moral failure. He argues what is considered newsworthy is not derived “from any overarching moral code”, but simply relates “to the human instinct to know of events that affect them”.

However, given that at the core of public interest journalism is the pursuit of truth, a grasping of objective reality that advances the common good, it can be considered an intrinsically moral endeavour. It is recognised as an integral part of the democratic process. Journalism’s overarching moral code is itself the pursuit of truth, while the outworkings of Western foreign policy that threaten a regional conflagration in West Asia, as well as a possible nuclear world war, should make these events relevant to all.

Much of RNZ’s trouble rests on its reliance on news copy from international partners, reflected by complaints made to the Press Council. RNZ told the Independent Review Panel in 2023 it does not make changes to these stories. Whether or not this is due to negotiated news-sharing agreements making changes impossible or because it believes it is not necessary, the end result is RNZ must stand by what is republished.

The content also forms the epistemic foundations of its own stories.

Omissions and false balance

Its approach, both in its own output and news wire agency use, has repeatedly led to ‘false balance’ in many stories, where Israel’s claims are given parity with verifiable facts. Examples include republished stories that featured Israeli claims a Palestinian rocket hit the al-Ahli Arab Hospital killing hundreds of civilians on October 17, 2023.

RNZ also ran with October 7 mass rape stories from Reuters and CNN, subsequently found to be false, an issue not acknowledged by Feslier.

RNZ regularly published inflated figures of Israeli deaths and completely omitted the fact Israel killed its own citizens under its Hannibal Directive to stop hostage taking that day. Feslier agreed with RNZ and the Press Council’s rejection of a January 2024 complaint over a Reuters story carrying a distorted interpretation of these events.

One paragraph stated: “Israel has killed more than 23,000 Palestinians in Gaza since launching its campaign to eradicate the Hamas militant group that runs the enclave after Hamas fighters killed 1200 Israelis and captured 240 hostages in a rampage on 7 October.”

The complainant pointed out 1068 people were killed and some by the Israeli Defence Forces. Also note that Reuters uncritically accepts Israel’s claim that its campaign is to eradicate Hamas as one of the epistemic foundation blocks of its story, instead of framing it as a campaign of ethnic cleansing based on the dynamics of violence observable on the ground.

RNZ defended the figures used as ‘the journalistic convention of rounding to the near multiple’, while the Press Council held that “the lack of precision would not have misled readers’ and failure to distinguish between Israelis and foreigners killed was not a “significant error warranting a ruling against RNZ”.

Feslier makes no mention of a failure to reference the Hannibal Directive, a significant omission that would have challenged long-running atrocity propaganda featured in RNZ content and in the wider media, which helped condition the public to be more receptive to Israel’s ‘right to defend itself’ narrative pushed by Western governments.

Material and immaterial facts defence

Feslier also agreed with RNZ’s rejection of a complaint over a CNN story that stated Hamas was sworn to the destruction of Israel. The Hamas’ charter accepts Israel’s right to exist.

He agreed with RNZ’s position that although incorrect, it wasn’t a ‘material’ fact in the story that would have led to readers misunderstanding the nature of the conflict or events being reported.

RNZ had replied:

“Whether or not the statement ‘Hamas and Islamic Jihad - both sworn to Israel's destruction…’ is strictly accurate is not necessary to decide in the context of this complaint.

“While stated as a fact, it is not a material fact that would mislead the audience in their understanding of the extent of the conflict currently occurring or the ramifications of that conflict spreading. The article was not an opportunity to review the policies or beliefs of both sides of the conflict which may or may not be fuelling the extent of the military action occurring.”

While maintaining RNZ had not breached standards, Feslier recommended the outlet “should consider a stronger approach to accuracy by upholding complaints about mis-stated facts even if they are ‘immaterial’.”

RNZ’s distinction between material and immaterial facts to argue no breach of standards is made when it suits management. Much of my sub-editing, for example, involved adding minor context to stories which would be considered ‘immaterial’ facts, and facts that were not wrong. In one story flagged by its 2023 audit as a breach of standards, I’d added that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was a ‘journalist’.

Balance over time

The same selectivity applies when the broadcaster claims it achieves balance over time ‘within the period of current interest’, instead of having balance itself within a particular news segment or story itself.

Feslier accepts the RNZ position it achieves balance over time in its output, but he presents no way of validating or measuring how true this has been. He advises RNZ to keep track of stories that lean to a particular ‘side’, so that balance over time can be quantifiably achieved in future.

RNZ management has a history of avoiding accountability and transparency and their treatment of Gaza reporting and dismissal of complaints is consistent with past behaviour. RNZ managers have proven themselves to be, above all, narrative enforcers who omit inconvenient facts and voices and apply ‘standards’ when it suits them.

RNZ managers dismissed ‘balance over time’ when they falsely characterised a story I had written on the Ukraine war as imbalanced. It featured the voices of former minister Matt Robson and ex-Labour Party chairman Mike Smith, who had called the conflict a ‘Western proxy war against Russia’ and urged diplomacy to avert the threat of a nuclear conflict.

I’d sought a response from the Foreign Minister and included a short, derisory response by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT). When the story was published RNZ political editor Jane Patterson complained, claiming imbalance, a position rejected by senior digital management.

After further pressure by Patterson, I was instructed to ring her deputy, who requested I contact former Pentagon contractor and commentator Paul Buchanan and hawkish defence-linked academic David Capie for comment, and requested any further stories relating to politics be sent to Patterson.

I tagged their comments at the bottom of the story. Several months later, RNZ management told the 2023 Independent Review Panel the story had not been balanced and falsely claimed I’d been warned over the incident. However, the Panel found I’d covered significant alternative perspectives of former senior Labour coalition members and that balance had been achieved over time, the original position of my immediate digital manager.

Trusted sources recommendation rejected

It is notable that RNZ rejected one of the review’s recommendations that would have made its internal processes more transparent and amenable to public scrutiny. Feslier suggested a “section on the RNZ website discussing the sources it trusts and the reasons for doing so”.

“This could distinguish, for example, between the BBC news operation and its many other programmes, podcasts and web publications,” Feslier suggested.

RNZ promised it would take a more transparent approach in other ways.

“It would stray into difficult territory if it started to specifically single out and name other outlets, and their merits or otherwise. It would also be challenging to keep such a section updated and fair within the broader media environment,” it said.

RNZ would leave itself vulnerable by publicly discussing who it trusts as reliable news sources. Defending the BBC and CNN in particular, media outlets that have been repeatedly exposed for pushing blatant propaganda over the past 18 months, would put RNZ in a particularly precarious situation.

Its lack of transparency in its use of international news sources has been apparent in several Official Information Act responses, characterised by independent journalist and 1 of 200 political podcast co-host Kyle Church as “obstructionist” and “deliberately unhelpful”.

Church sent a request in December 2024 requesting emails and meeting notes over discussions on RNZ’s digital operation switching over from extensive use of BBC copy to use of CNN stories over the past two years, as well as its recent use of AFP copy. The short two-line reply said RNZ still maintained a relationship with the BBC and incorrectly stated it had always used CNN copy.

Review will not help restore public trust levels

Reviews like RNZ’s will be viewed historically as semantic attempts to justify the structural failings of media institutions unable or unwilling to meet the informational needs of democratic citizenship, which would have allowed the public to interpret and understand events in Gaza in a way that translated into political pressure to change government foreign policy settings backing Israel’s destruction of the enclave.

Feslier’s narrow focus meant that he was never going to critique a chronically-ill media ecosystem poisoned by Zionist lobbyists, defence and foreign policy establishment thinktanks, corporatism and a toxic climate of self-censorship, smearing and groupthink.

It is a situation that has made the duty of journalists, as stated in their Code of Ethics, that they “shall report and interpret the news with scrupulous honesty by striving to disclose all essential facts and by not suppressing relevant, available facts or distorting by wrong or improper emphasis,” hard, if not structurally impossible, to meet.

When the review framed Israel’s expansionist project in West Asia, its illegal occupation of Palestine and its ethnic cleansing and genocidal onslaught in Gaza a “complex and contested” issue that demanded sensitivity in reporting, it backed RNZ’s and Western media’s passive editorial positioning and rationalised an obrogation of journalistic responsibility.

When contested claims hinge on verifiable facts, journalists can and should add information to help people decide which claims to believe. Failing to do so, at the very least, lowered the standard of news.

The broadcaster could have and ought to have framed its coverage around the very apparent dangers of genocide in Gaza taking place, in light of statements of genocidal intent by Israeli leaders, the growing evidence available and given Israel’s history of colonial domination and ethnic cleansing. RNZ declined to take this approach, allowing itself instead to be used as an instrument of Western foreign policy messaging, particularly by its uncritical use of stories from international partners.

Feslier’s recommendations failed to address any of these fundamentals. His review may have offered useful advice to media managers looking to protect their news brand, but these are unlikely to be of any use to a public seeking to be informed on events surrounding the most pressing moral issue of this generation.